People say the electoral college favors the republicans

>people say the electoral college favors the republicans
>if hillary were to have won both florida and michigan, which have historically been blue, she would have won the election while only winning 22/50 states

:thinking:

Other urls found in this thread:

census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>a vote from a heavily populated state counts less than a vote from a state with limited people living there
>this makes sense because ???
>b-b-but we should let lots of tiny towns in the middle of nowhere help dictate national policy to a larger degree than huge urban centers where the majority of people in America live

neck yourself

their votes count less because its assumed that people in population dense areas will have similar needs/wants from their president, while people in spread our rural areas have different needs from eachother since they actually live far apart

the founding fathers didnt plan on us picking our president based on social media posts and celebrity endorsements like hillary shills

>florida
>historically been blue

Why should your vote count less based on geographic location?

Their vote counts less on an individual basis but more on a collective basis.

Like all these fuckers in California saying "the electoral college is unfair because a vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 times mine", while California on its own counts for 1/5th of the votes needed to win the presidency.

And wow, it's almost like the system was designed to give all states regardless of population some say in who becomes president so that candidates are forced to build nationwide coalitions and not rely on a few heavily populated regions to completely control who is elected.

its not based on geographic location you fucking moron its based on population density

its assumed that the mexicans in california that live 5 feet away from eachother all have the same needs for presidents, while one guy in bumfuck nowhere in idaho has completely different needs for president than another guy in bumfuck nowhere 100 miles from the other guy.

Candidates campaign in the same few swing states because of the EC. They completely ignore other states. If we got rid of the EC they would have to go around the country. Why is campaigning mainly in cities a bad thing? Most people live in cities.

You just admitted that your vote counts less based on your location with the EC. Why should a family of Mexicans living 5 feet apart votes count less than Joe living in the middle of the woods in Wyoming?

>the founding fathers didnt plan on us picking our president based on social media posts and celebrity endorsements like hillary shills
>literally elected a reality TV star instead of a career politician

>nationwide coalitions
>40 states solid enough that candidates barely bother campaigning there, it's all focused on swing states

because it's assumed that people 5 feet away from eachother have the same issues and needs for a president. what dont you understand about that?

move if you want for it to count more
the territories count for zero btw

I dont understand why you think that peoples vote should matter less based on their location. Its true that people living together typically have similar political beliefs. Cool beans. Why should they get less of a say in elections because of that?

ok now that i know youre trolling

carry one

No, seriously, why should certain people's votes matter less just because they all agree on something?

Michigan is all but confirmed red. Trump could lose both Florida and Michigan's 36 votes, AND STILL WIN.

What we're concerned about now is only whether he wins by 8% or 14%. I doubt 36 electors will change their vote in one year if 80 is the total count since 1776.
Even if that happened, congress still has power to overrule faithless electors, and congress is majority republican now. Not to mention that only a few states allow vote changing at all.

It's done, shills. You have to go back.

>if things were different, things would have been different

>candidates only focus on campaigning in swing states
How'd that work out for Hillary?

This is why state governments and the Senate exist. It should be 1 person = 1 vote in national elections that affect everyone.

Why should the needs of urban dwellers be the only ones that matter?

because we live in a republic, not a democracy

hillary didn't campaign at all in michigan.

i live in michigan, she was here before the dem convention and then peaced out until the day before the elections when she brought her whole crew since she realized michigan wasn't as blue as she thought.

she fucked up

So five people's needs should be less significant than one person's needs, gotcha.

They wouldn't go around the country. They'd set up offices in major cities, do on the ground campaigning there and rely on television, internet and radio to reach voters elsewhere.

Or to quote Hogan Gidley who advises Republican candidates
>“I would never go to another county fair. I’d never go to a local fish fry. I’d never go to a VFW, instead, I’d send my candidate the major city centers on the coasts. There’d be no reason to campaign in Middle America because the votes wouldn’t be there.”

Most of the post election analysis has focused on urban based media outlets being out of touch with rural voters. Removing the electoral college would only exacerbate this.

More money would be required to run nationwide advertisements, large scale appearances in cities, and expensive full time offices in every major city. So if you don't like big moneyed interests in politics, removing the electoral college isn't going to help that.

And beyond all that, if you move away from the electoral college to a popular vote system, it effectively erases the already minor power over the election that rural areas have. What reason do they have to still stay in the union? Their votes are meaningless, their candidates only interact with urban areas, and urban interests rule all aspects of government.

>if if if if if if if if if
Okie doke OP

Why should rural voters get more of a say per capita?

This meme needs to die. Retarded democrats for some reason decided it would be a good idea to just stay home in Michigan because hey its been blue since 1988 its not like us voting is what kept it that way. Trump didn't gain ground, Hillary lost it.

She must have thought that the republicans' complete disregard of training and education investment that caused all your jobs to leave would be enough for you to vote Democrat.

>urban interests rule all aspects of government.
Welcome to le current year

because otherwise the mexicans living 5 feet apart control the government, the guy living by himself in idaho has no say in government, and the USA becomes tyranny by majority

this is why the USA is not a democracy and is not intended to be

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts

We'd all have a wonderful Christmas, user

because if a candidate plays only to their need to win because there are more of them the people who live in low density areas will be forgotten.

please educate yourself.

No they would not, it would only alter the flight plans of the candidates who were serious about winning.

Instead of traveling to Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada, they would be making trips to LA, NYC, and Texas. Elections would be driven on turning out the base over converting others to your side, and anyone outside a major metropolitan area would be left in the cold.

Instead of the Californians complaining that their vote doesn't matter, it will be the people in Wyoming, Kansas, Vermont, and so on. The problem won't be solved, the consequences will be shelved on another group of people numbering in the millions.

>you vote for a president to allocate needs
>these five people dont have enough power on their own
>we shouldnt elect a president to represent home grown minorities, particularly ones of a culturally historical foundation of the country

To ensure their voices and concerns are heard.

It's not as if under the current system city dwellers are irrelevant, the way rural voters would be under a straight popular vote.

michigan hates the clintons. do your research.

republicans have always been good to michigan, much better than bill clinton.

>people who live in low density areas will be forgotten.
They already are, this is just the death throes.

>Florida
>Historically blue
Florida has gone Democrat in only 5 of the last 17 elections. 1964 for LBJ (landslide), 1976 for Carter (close election), 1996 for Clinton (landslide), 2008 for Obama, and 2012 for Obama.

Florida is only "historically blue" if we're discussing the years before the Civil Rights Acts.

>Romney votes in Michigan, 2012: 2,115,256
>Trump votes in Michigan, 2016: 2,279,210
>Trump - Romney = 163,954

>Obama votes in Michigan, 2012: 2,564,569
>Clinton votes in Michigan, 2016: 2,267,373
>Clinton - Obama = -297,196

Some Obama voters from 2008 and 2012 decided to hop onboard the Trump Train in 2016, while a number of other Obama voters from 2008 and 2012 stayed home.

22/50 states AND the popular vote. Sad that we admitted the people of the unpopulated territories.

Which is why Bill won it both times. By "do your research" do you mean watch random Breitbart videos? Or do you mean getting unsourced false statistics from twitter users whose names start with "deplorable"

>Elections would be driven on turning out the base over converting others to your side

That's already what it is. 46% of voters didn't vote. That's not accounting for fraud either.

No, again it was higher turnout among Trump supporters and lower support among Clinton. This is how most elections work, voters aren't usually swung, its decided on turnout in certain areas.

no one cares about your popular vote Juan, take your mexican friends and get gone

it would be impossible to hate a candidate before they were actually president, idiot.

>it would be impossible to hate a candidate before they were actually president, idiot.

Jesus christ you have to be legitimately retarded. You also realize Clinton won it during his reelection campaign in '96, right? Or was Bill Clinton somehow not president in 1996.

Mexicans and other shitskins, are subhuman, that's why.

>its another "i dont have a response so ill just say x group is subhuman and shouldnt be allowed to vote because just by the sheer stupidity of it nobody will attempt to refute it" episode

this wasn't
it's a "minority" coalition forming

yes, it would be impossible to hate him without having actually been through his administration.

or are we suppose to hate him before he was president?

Why should everyone's vote count equally?

Turnout has been hovering around 50% for decades. The turnout the base strategy is much more recent, and coincides with the downfall of the Rockefeller republicans and the blue dog democrats. It's been used before, but not on the scale of the last three elections where Obama won 2012 purely on turnout.

I won't deny that base mobilisation is a big part of why the Rust Belt flipped this year, but Obama-Trump voters exist, and were quite numerous this year. Of course, not nearly as numerous as the "Reagan Democrats" of the 1980s, but they exist.

What the fuck are you on about? This entire board has been on a crusade against Hillary for the past 2 years and she's never been president.

State governments would be fine but 1861 proved that Americans can't handle multiple layers of democracy.

This is a really stupid, shitty argument. It's about on par with saying you can't decide for sure whether you love her until you get married.

Hillary dindu nuffin wrong. Why do these problematic assholes hate her so much? I legitimately don't understand.

I did not say anybody did. It is simply that demographics is destiny. In 4 years the exaxt same %s voting would cause Trump to lose. Good fucking luck in 16 bitch.

I always love when we get to oppress the south.

>It's about on par with saying you can't decide for sure whether you love her until you get married.

youre denying that the "honeymoon" effect doesn't exist? plenty of people think they're in love until they're married and find out it was all lies

Electoral college was designed by our founding fathers to give every state an equal say in who's elected and so one state *cough California* doesn't dictate for the rest of the USA what the fuck is so hard to understand about that?
I swear to God liberals, wait no scratch that, almost everyone needs to crack open a damn history book instead of going to facebook and having an outcry based on "in the moment" fee fees so they stop making my country look like big dumb babies.
Kek, nice shitpost cannuck

This is actually the opposite of a counterargument, and also is something you'll probably be stupid to understand the irony of two years into a Trump presidency.

And this is why your vote is worth less.

>your vote is worth less because of shittisipians who threatened to secede because they couldnt own people anymore
Not a very sound argument.

This is why the senate exists, for the small states to be heard. I'll say it again. NATIONAL ELECTIONS = DECIDED BY THE NATION

reminder that trump wouldve also won popular vote if illegals werent allowed to vote

>This is why the senate exists, for the small states to be heard. I'll say it again. NATIONAL ELECTIONS = DECIDED BY THE NATION
And they are
If anything we should increase the senate to restore the balance in the electoral college back to what it was when the country was founded

>ill just make a claim so stupid with 0 evidence outside of james "reliable source" o'keefe videos that nobody can refute it

>This is why the senate exists, for the small states to be heard. I'll say it again. NATIONAL ELECTIONS = DECIDED BY THE NATION


The Senate is part of an entirely different branch of federal government than the president.

States should be allowed an equal say in federal elections regarding the executive branch as well as the congressional branch. There's no logical reason for there to be a difference in weight between the two branches.

>NATIONAL ELECTIONS = DECIDED BY THE NATION

They are.

We are the United *States* of America, not the United *Citizens* of America.

The citizens get a say in where their states cast the votes. The states cast the vote themselves.

>democracy
>any year

the founders were wise to how they applied federalism for the US.

>the entire country's direction should be determined by demographic shuffleboard
why do you hate america?

Cry about it more. Fuck urban centers you people live in a bubble, giving you control over anything would be awful. The state of California has a pretty bad deficit right now if I'm not mistaken, despite the fact that it's the wealthiest fucking state. You people are absolute morons, and your influence is limited for good reason.

illegals aren't allowed to vote leaf

everybody lives in their own bubble.

Why do we care about what Mexicans need? If they're not citizens they don't matter.

>MUH CONSTITUIONAL REPUBLIC

It's not an argument of what the law is, its an argument on whether or not its a moral law in the first place.

>"States should be allowed an equal say in federal elections regarding the executive branch as well as the congressional branch. There's no logical reason for there to be a difference in weight between the two branches."

No, they shouldn't. Some shitter in Wyoming shooting cans on a fence doesn't deserve more votes than 10 people in CA just because of the existence of his state, half of which just exist to appease southerners so the Senate couldn't try to abolish slavery.

>you could have been born in a timeline where there was no EC and mega-cities dictated the outcome of every general election, leading to renegade degeneracy
>instead you were born in a glorious federal republic where millions of imported illegal immigrants can't sway the outcomes of elections
feels grand

>my shitty piece of farmland and myself should count more than 10 peoples votes because apparently # of pixels on google earth > # of people voting

Why do you hate democracy?

Yeah but yours happens to be really expensive and out of touch with the majority of Americans. Or anyone who doesn't agree with you really.

Because it doesn't work and people are too stupid to have direct control over the government?

>out of touch with the majority of Americans

census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html

Cities are the last areas to feel the effects of a stagnant or regressing economy, by the time it hit you fuckers it would be too late

>people are too stupid

Who is? People who disagree with you?

why shouldn't he?

And why should anyone give a flying fuck about every single person from New York? This is a stupid idea coming from someone who literally just wants to turn things in their favor for selfish reasons.

Illegal aliens were voting en masse, buddy. Didn't you get the memo?

That's why Americans want a wall.

>democracy
What country are you living in? The United States of America is a Federal Republic, retard.

The Constitution was agreed upon by the states, and each state had an equal vote in the ratification of the Constitution, regardless of population. They didn't put the Constitution to popular referendum, they let the state governments decide it. The upper house of our national legislature was supposed to be filled from appointments made by the state government.

This is federalism. The states are meant to be the primary participants in the federal government, citizens are the secondary participants. State governments are for primary participation of the citizenry.

No, every single citizen of this country. They are uninformed. If we lived in a small, well educated country I'd be saying otherwise. But we don't, we have no money (because of globalist/crazy republican policy) therefore we have shitty schools therefore most of us are stupid.

Grow your food in the concrete.

Mine?

Anyway, the 'majority', based on election, results is split right down the middle.

Both sides say with equal emphasis that the other side is 'out of touch with the majority of Americans. Or anyone who doesn't agree with them really.'

They are both right and both wrong I think.

Most food is grown by corps based in cities and the fields worked by immigrants (legal and illegal). Redpill yourself.

No, the side that lost the election is wrong.

Because the majority of Americans live in or around cities? The whole idea of "real americans" living in the country is completely false, "real americans" live in the city.

>muh unsourced/james o keefe claims

>he thinks because we signed a piece of paper 200+ years ago that it should literally never change at all ever

Should we repeal the 12th amendment and make Mitt Romney Obama's VP, or maybe the 13th, we can reinstate slavery. How about we just say fuck it and reenact prohibition, or repeal the entire Bill of Rights? Because according to you, the Constitution can never change!

>literally elected a reality TV star instead of a career politician
>career politician
The founding fathers would have been disgusted by the notion of career politicians.

The Founding Fathers were career politicians you retard.

there is no good reason to change it though.

They were great men that emerged from all walks of life to shoulder the burden of ruling.

Read: They had careers beforehand besides "professional ruler".

They were land owners, businessmen, generals, merchants, etc.

Not people that went to college specifically to make money from lobbyists. They were influential men who had other shit going for them, and therefore could actually represent the concerns of the people.

Buy a rope.

Oh, so there's an amendment that bases all decisions on popular referendums now?

Your entire argument against the Constitution is that amendments changed the Constitution, and therefore change is good, then why don't you just put an amendment into the Constitution to change the Presidential election from state electors to popular vote? Oh that's right, you fucking can't. Because you're one of the masses and not a state government.

The reason why it was designed so that state governments have the primary decision power in the federal government was so that it didn't devolve into some kind of clusterfuck where the fate of the nation was decided by the average retard and the shifting demographics. Democracies only work in small, ethnically homogeneous countries like Switzerland.

Read: Most of them were some form of southern aristocrats who held immense influence over the government and had been for decades plotting their rise to power.

>Patriarchy and southern racists and-
Yeah, nevermind.

I don't care what you think.

They were actually not voting en masse or otherwise.

That reply made no sense and did not address my argument.

Try again?